Australia’s biggest eco-crusader, Andrew Forrest, is never short of words when dealing with his detractors but the mining magnate’s decision to pick a fight with fellow environmental evangelist, Elon Musk, seems like a missed opportunity.Logic would dictate that the two business titans should be natural allies. But the headbutting between, arguably two of the world’s highest profile headline makers, points to a fundamental difference in vision.Andrew Forrest’s family investment arm Tattarang has put $5 million behind a Perth company in the medicinal cannabis industry.Forrest was in New York this week, using the stage created by US President Joe Biden’s F
irst Movers Coalition and the United Nations Global Compact, to put some numerical flesh around the bones of Fortescue Metals’ strategy to decarbonise its operations by 2030.But in what has become a battle of environmental bona fides between Australia’s richest man and America’s richest person (as identified by Forbes), their wildly different views on the best technology to
save the planet has become apparent.For Forrest, with a platform of this size, the opportunity to take a swipe at Musk (whose public debating prowess is generally confined to Twitter) was too tempting to pass up.In an extraordinarily candid outburst to the media, Forrest reportedly suggested Musk was ‘just a businessman’ rather than “a real climate avenger”.Tesla CEO Elon Musk.The genesis of this battle appears to be Musk’s dismissal of green hydrogen as the technology weapon to fight emissions.Musk, whose wealth has been generated by spearheading the push to electric vehicles via the creation of his company Tesla, doesn’t agree and has gone so far as to describe green hydrogen as “mind-bogglingly stupid”.Forrest couldn’t let that invective slide. He told the Financial Times, “He [Musk] knows that, almost every time a Tesla is plugged into almost every grid in the world, it is just burning coal and oil and gas….
I mean, it is doing nothing for the environment. So, his ‘mind-boggling stupid’ is whitewash.”A difference of opinion around technological weaponry is legitimate enough. The science is still emerging and the jury is still out on whether green hydrogen is a commercial solution - aAustralia’s biggest eco-crusader, Andrew Forrest, is never short of words when d
ealing with his detractors but the mining magnate’s decision to pick a fight with fellow environmental evangelist, Elon Musk, seems like a missed opportunity.Logic would dictate that the two business titans should be natural allies. But the headbutting between, arguably two of the world’s highest profile headline makers, points to a fundamental difference in vision.Andrew Forrest’s family investment arm Tattarang has put $5 million behind a Perth company in the medicinal cannabis industry.Forrest was in New York this week, using the stage created by US President Joe Biden’s First Movers Coalition and the United Nations Global Compact, t
o put some numerical flesh around the bones of Fortescue Metals’ strategy to decarbonise its operations by 2030.But in what has become a battle of environmental bona fides between Australia’s richest man and America’s richest person (as identified by Forbes), their wildly different views on the best technology to save the planet has become apparent.For Forrest, with a platform of this size, the opportunity to take a swipe at Musk (whose public debating prowess is generally confined to Twitter) was too
tempting to pass up.In an extraordinarily candid outburst to the media, Forrest reportedly suggested Musk was ‘just a businessman’ rather than “a real climate avenger”.Tesla CEO Elon Musk.The genesis of this battle appears to be Musk’s dismissal of green hydrogen as the technology weapon to fight emissions.Musk, whose wealth has been generated by spearheading the push to electric vehicles via the creation of his company Tesla, doesn’t agree and has gone so far as to describe green hydrogen as “mind-bogglingly stupid”.Forrest couldn’t let that invective slide. He told the Financial Times, “He [Musk] knows that, almost every time a Tesla is plugged into almost every grid in the world, it is just burning coal and oil and gas….I mean, it is doing nothing for the environment. So, his ‘mind-boggling stupid’ is whitewash.”A difference of opinion around technological weaponry is legitimate enough. The science is still emerging and the jury is still out on whether green hydrogen is a commercial solution - although Forrest has spent a lot of time and resources to prove it up.Fortescue announced in June it will replace almost half the haul trucks at its Pilbara iron ore mines with battery and hydrogen-powered units from German firm Liebherr which will use technology fromFORTESCUE But what is really mind-boggling is that Forrest - the ultimate businessman -
has accused Musk of being too business-like.If one strips back the theatre from Forrest’s announcement about Fortescue’s plan to eradicate the company’s emissions within eight years, what you end up with is a financial road map containing two important messages for investors.The first part of that process is to cement the investment required to transform Fortescue’s operations into an oasis of green. The second is a very clear statement about the yearly and cumulative savings for Fortescue.In a nutshell, Forrest says there will be net operating cost savings of $US818 million ($1.2 billion) per annum from 2030, at prevailing market prices of diesel, gas and Australian Carbon Credit Units. (The prevailing prices of diesel and gas are currently particularly high, thanks to the war in Ukraine and a lot could change over the next couple of years.)Fortescue has also flagged cumulative operating cost savings of $US3 billion ($4.5 billion) by 2030 and payback of capital by 2034, at prevailing market prices.On the other side of the ledger, the miner plans to invest $US6.2 billion ($9.2 billion) of capital on renewable projects to reach its ‘real’ zero emissions goal.It is an investment that Forrest says falls well within the envelope of the promise Fortescue made to investors that no more than 10 per cent of the iron ore company’s profits would be spent on Fortescue Future Industries’ c
apital expenditure.lthough Forrest has spent a lot of time and resources to prove it up.Fortescue announced in June it will replace almost half the haul trucks at its Pilbara iron ore mines with battery and hydrogen-powered units from German firm Liebherr which will use technology fromFORTESCUE But what is really mind-boggling is that Forrest - the ultimate businessman - has accused Musk of being too business-like.If one strips back the theatre from Forrest’s announcement about Fortescue’s plan to eradicate the company’s emissions within eight years, what you end up with is a financial road map containing two important messages for investors.The first part of that process is to cement the investment required to transform Fortescue’s operations into an oasis of green. The second is a very clear s
tatement about the yearly and cumulative savings for Fortescue.In a nutshell, Forrest says there will be net operating cost savings of $US818 million ($1.2 billion) per annum from 2030, at prevailing market prices of diesel, gas and Australian Carbon Credit Units. (The prevailing prices of diesel and gas are currently particularly high, thanks to the war in Ukraine and a lot could change over the next couple of years.)Fortescue has also flagged cumulative operating cost savings of $US3 billion ($4.5 billion) by 2030 and payback of capital by 2034, at prevailing market prices.On the other side of the ledger, the miner plans to invest $US6.2 billion ($9.2 billion) of capital on renewable projects to reach its ‘real’ zero emissions goal.It is an investment that Forrest says falls well within the envelope of the promise Fortescue made to investors that no more than 10 per cent of the iron ore company’s profits would be spent on Fortescue Future Industries’ capital expenditure.
Expand
(20min delay)